Always an interesting read..... Audi A3 2012 - Real MPGs | Honest John
The 2.0TDi appears to be getting better MPG than the 1.6TDi.
The 2.0TDi appears to be getting better MPG than the 1.6TDi.
Honest John Real MPG
- Thread starter hittchy
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 2,667
- Reaction score
- 132
- Points
- 63
- Location
- North East, UK
- Website
- jonathan-butler.co.uk
Can certainly see that upsetting a lot of 1.6TDI owners.
My friends got a 2012 1.6TDI Leon, figures claim around the 74mpg and he's yet to see past 55mpg on a long run.
My friends got a 2012 1.6TDI Leon, figures claim around the 74mpg and he's yet to see past 55mpg on a long run.
The 1.4 TFSI figures seem about right. I've done 300 miles so far and i'm up to 38mpg. Looks like their real world figures range from 37 to 44.
You could predict this with the theory , a 2.0 tdi has more power thus having to paste it less to get where you want........or the speed you want to achieve
this is why I bought. 2.0 tdi , as my 8v is meant to be my fuel economical transportation
Sean
this is why I bought. 2.0 tdi , as my 8v is meant to be my fuel economical transportation
Sean
I agree. You'd probably have to drive the 1.6TDi much harder to make adequate progress in real life.
I'd anticipated very little extra saving in terms of fuel consumption on the 1.6TDi, but didn't anticipate the 2.0TDi being better!
I'd anticipated very little extra saving in terms of fuel consumption on the 1.6TDi, but didn't anticipate the 2.0TDi being better!
The points about having to/choosing to push the 1.6 harder are certainly valid, but also note that these figures come from 14 submissions of 'real world' mpg averages. Those 14 submissions go towards the data for 4 engine variants. I can't see anywhere that it says how many for each, but worth bearing in mind that this is a very small sample size. It could be only one submission for each! Even if it was 10, you'd still want to run a statistical analysis to decide if 47.5 and 51.6 are significantly different. If it was just a couple of submissions, i reckon you'd never be able to say they were statistically significantly different.
If you can't say they're different, you can't say one is more than the other.
Now if you did a similar thing on here where people submitted average fuel economies we could probably produce something more accurate! Or suggest people submit to this Honest John site to increase their accuracy.
Just my two penneth as a scientist!
If you can't say they're different, you can't say one is more than the other.
Now if you did a similar thing on here where people submitted average fuel economies we could probably produce something more accurate! Or suggest people submit to this Honest John site to increase their accuracy.
Just my two penneth as a scientist!
A fair point.
Whilst I agree that 14 entries is not particularly statistically sound, I'd hazard a guess that these figures will be far more accurate than the rolling road derived EU figures. As more and more people submit, they'll become even more accurate.
My A4 had what I considered appalling fuel consumption when I purchased 3 years ago. It was returning 40-42mpg whilst the published combined figure was 55mpg. Despite complaining to the dealer and getting the car checked out they claimed it was fine. If you look at the Real MPG figure for the car it's bang on 40-42mpg.
When I collected my A3 at the weekend, I brimmed the tank before and after the 160 mile journey home giving 51mpg which is pretty much what others are reporting.
All in all, it's an interesting read and far more accurate than manufacturer figures.
Agreed that manufacturers figures are higher than what is really achievable.
But they are consistent at least.
I'd normally suspect that around 15mpg lower than manufacturer's claimed is achievable, so as your say around low 50s seems sensible.
I'm definitely not saying these honest John figures are wrong, just that we should bear in mind the context of a small sample size, so seeing a few mpg's different might not necessarily be significant.
But they are consistent at least.
I'd normally suspect that around 15mpg lower than manufacturer's claimed is achievable, so as your say around low 50s seems sensible.
I'm definitely not saying these honest John figures are wrong, just that we should bear in mind the context of a small sample size, so seeing a few mpg's different might not necessarily be significant.
Hmmmm.
I have a 2.0TDI and went out for a quick journey through town, roughly 15 miles, in economy mode and didn't get above 27MPG
I have a 2.0TDI and went out for a quick journey through town, roughly 15 miles, in economy mode and didn't get above 27MPG
Ouch. :sign_omg:
I used to get 33mpg from my S3. I'm guessing it wasn't that 'quick' a journey to return those figures.
I live in Milton Keynes, so it's mostly dual carriageways, but stop and start for roundabouts. Was travelling between 60-70mph, not hooning it at all! The car is very poor on economy thus far. An 80 mile trip on Sunday in Economy mode, on cruise, average 46.7MPG.
squiretolley
Registered User
Doesn't bode well then chaps. I'm coming from a mk5 golf GT tdi 140 and driving very carefully on dual carriageways and motorways I can get 46-48, I was hoping to better this with the A3 but doesn't look like it!
Things should also change as the engines loosen up a bit. The first few thousand miles will be among the least economical in a car's life. I'd like to look at those figures in 6 months time when the sample size is larger and the cars are more run in.
When I collected my car the dealer said to allow a few thousand miles for the economy to improve. I'm assuming this is for things to bed in and loosen up.
As has been mentioned many times before, temperature has a big bearing on these figures, especially if the first 10-15 minutes or so of a cold start journey are urban based.
My current Scirocco 2.0TDI BM GT, is averaging approx 43mpg in my daily commute to work and back and pretty much has been since about November time. In the summer however, for exactly the same journey my MPG rises to 48-50 easily.
I put this down to a) The Diesel takes longer to warm up, and all VAG diesels have an auxillary electric heater (approx 1kw) to speed up the warm up times, so this obviously uses quite a bit of juice to power it. b) Sometimes I have the engine running for 5 minutes or so whilst I defrost the car and c) In the Winter months you tend to have the Lights on, heated rear window, heating on full with Air Con, seat heating etc.
I would certainly wait until the temperatures rise above 10-12°C and see how its going then as others have suggested.
My current Scirocco 2.0TDI BM GT, is averaging approx 43mpg in my daily commute to work and back and pretty much has been since about November time. In the summer however, for exactly the same journey my MPG rises to 48-50 easily.
I put this down to a) The Diesel takes longer to warm up, and all VAG diesels have an auxillary electric heater (approx 1kw) to speed up the warm up times, so this obviously uses quite a bit of juice to power it. b) Sometimes I have the engine running for 5 minutes or so whilst I defrost the car and c) In the Winter months you tend to have the Lights on, heated rear window, heating on full with Air Con, seat heating etc.
I would certainly wait until the temperatures rise above 10-12°C and see how its going then as others have suggested.
What's interesting is that everyone on THIS forum have pretty much confirmed that the 1.6TDi gets BETTER consumption than the 2.0TDi...
I'm not so sure. The fuel consumption thread seems to be a mixed bag. Number's 2.0TDi seems to be getting 60mpg plus whilst quite a few of the 1.6TDi owners are reporting far less.
Time will tell, although I'd be pretty gutted if I'd bought a 1.6 and it was no better on fuel than the 2.0.
When I had a demo A3 2.0TDi Sport for a weekend I got 53mpg driving not particularly carefully on mainly dual carriageways for 300ish miles.
I was pretty happy with that. I'm sure I could have gotten over 60 if I'd be more careful.
Also, the car had about 4000 miles on the clock.
I was pretty happy with that. I'm sure I could have gotten over 60 if I'd be more careful.
Also, the car had about 4000 miles on the clock.
If you were buying, rather than leasing/company car, you'd still have saved £1480 which is worth having in your pocket, or pays for a lot of options!
I reckon there are a lot of people that go for the 1.6 because they don't care for more power for extra money.
Ah, but you wouldn't get the full £1500 saving as the 2.0 would have a better residual.
I think most opting for the 1.6 are company car drivers where the co2 makes a big difference to their BIK payments. It could also be the only option on their lists. As you say, it could also be that some buyers aren't interested in the extra power.
However, whichever way you cut it, I'd be expecting far better fuel consumption.
Fair point on the residuals, but I reckon you'd still see a good proportion of that saving.
BIK saving is significant, so CC drivers would probably focus on that.
I guess it depends on your motivation for buying the 1.6 - if I had done because I thought it achieve a considerable fuel saving, I'd be miffed. Although if I bought it for that reason, I'd probably drive quite conscientiously to eek every mpg out of it.
There are so many variable to consider that the whole discussing is almost void! Driving style, coming from more or less power (ie expectations when driving - if you were used to more power, maybe you'd push the card harder to make it 'feel' as quick?), diving conditions, trip durations, roads.
The ideal situation would probably be to lease for a month before purchase each engine option, to get a accurate comparison. Perhaps not practical however!
BIK saving is significant, so CC drivers would probably focus on that.
I guess it depends on your motivation for buying the 1.6 - if I had done because I thought it achieve a considerable fuel saving, I'd be miffed. Although if I bought it for that reason, I'd probably drive quite conscientiously to eek every mpg out of it.
There are so many variable to consider that the whole discussing is almost void! Driving style, coming from more or less power (ie expectations when driving - if you were used to more power, maybe you'd push the card harder to make it 'feel' as quick?), diving conditions, trip durations, roads.
The ideal situation would probably be to lease for a month before purchase each engine option, to get a accurate comparison. Perhaps not practical however!
